What do you aim at?
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
It was really interesting for me to talk to Ralf Souquet and find out that he doesn't look at the object ball at all. He focuses on the cue ball for his aiming... Amazing to me...
drivermaker
Banned
JoeyA said:
None of the above.
Either the edge of the object ball, the center of it, or halfway between.
But that would also be in relationship to either the CB or Cue tip...depending.
(I have used all that you mention over the years with varying degrees of success and consistency...the least being lights and whole ball...the most with base and contact point, or, "segments" which you didn't mention)
Last edited:
for me ...
It is the contact point. The better you get,
the smaller target on the object ball, the contact
point becomes. On close shots, you focus in on
about a pinhead or just slightly bigger.
Compare it as such - a beginning player is just
trying to hit the dartboard. A good player is
aiming for the bullseye.
It is the contact point. The better you get,
the smaller target on the object ball, the contact
point becomes. On close shots, you focus in on
about a pinhead or just slightly bigger.
Compare it as such - a beginning player is just
trying to hit the dartboard. A good player is
aiming for the bullseye.
drivermaker
Banned
JrockJustin said:
I wonder if Michael Jordan looked at the basketball while at the foul line or anywhere else on the floor instead of the hoop?
JoeyA said:
The path of the object ball. From the contact point to the part of the pocket I am playing. To find a single contact point makes it difficult when ball might be thrown a little, only have part of the pocket,.. Aiming this way allows me to better see the entire shot which includes the after path of the cue ball. For me it keeps everything very simple and very complete.
drivermaker said:
sarcasm aimed at who now?
drivermaker
Banned
JrockJustin said:
No sarcasm at all...just extremely strange for a pro to say that and trying to draw a comparison. It would also be like a MLB pitcher looking at the baseball in his delivery instead of the catchers mitt...or an NFL quarterback looking at the football as it's leaving his hand at release instead of the receiver 50 yards down the field. It's just flat out wild to think of that.
You guys read too much into my responses...that's why shit breaks out.
drivermaker
Banned
Cane said:
NO, others...
Funny you should mention that. The past two days I've been reading past versions of this discussion.CaptainJR said:
The title of this thread cracks me up though. Reminds me of one of my favorite obscure movie quotes:
Cop: Come on, we're headin' downtown.
Sugar Bear: Where your warrant at?
Cop: Behind that preposition.
Sugar Bear: What?
Cop: Didn't you go to school? You can't end a sentence with a preposition.
Sugar Bear: Oh. Then, uh, where your warrant at, motherfucker?
JoeyA said:
It seems like the majority use the contact point on the object ball. Here's another question along the same vein. Do you aim for the center of the pocket, or do you aim to overcut to the point of the pocket?
It was pointed out to me once by a very good player that the majority of missed shot are undercut. I had never really thought about it, but realized that what he was saying was entirely correct. If you watch most average players, nearly every shot they miss, they undercut. So, not only do they miss the shot, but they end up selling out more often than not because they have a tendency to leave the ball near the pocket. If you watch really good players, when they miss a shot, they usually overcut the shot.
I think that a lot of those undercut misses are probably actually due to the cueball "clinging" to the object ball and dragging it down the table with it momentarily and sort of throwing it to the short side of the pocket, as opposed to aiming errors. I also would guess that this would be more or less pronounced depending upon speed and condition (and cleanliness) of the balls, and possibly sidespin. Perhaps a slight overcut is just making up for this throw effect, but it does seem to work. It seems like it's difficult to actually overcut a lot of the thinner cut shots, which would logically mean that by aiming to overcut you would actually increase your odds of pocketing the ball. Also, by missing on that side of the pocket (if you miss), you will actually end up sending the object ball back toward the center of the cushion (on corner pocket cuts ) and avoiding the sellout.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
GeraldG said:
The majority aim at the contact point? I doubt that.
Seems like an odd all or nothing question. My aimline is such that if the cueball went straight without swerve or squirt and there were no friction, I either am aiming to overcut or undercut, often times with the theoretical aim outside of the pocket altogether. Depends on the english.
Fred <~~~ not to the center, I guess.
For most shots I look at the whole object ball but my point of aim is the intersection of the object ball's line to the target (usually the pocket) and the line of the cue ball to the object ball that will intersect with the first line.
The first line I referred to, object ball's line to the pocket, is a line that I see in my peripheral vision only... meaning I never look directly at it while in my stance... before?, yes... but in my stance, no... and the latter line is the line that I am establishing from pointing my cue through the vertical centerline of the cue ball (assuming I want no english being applied on this shot) to the intersection point of the two lines on the face of the object ball.
Make sense?
Ocassionally... on long, straight-in shots, I'll aim from my cue tip going through the base point of the cue ball to the base point of the object ball. I then adjust the height of my cue tip to get the desired effect (draw/no float/follow) for the distance the cue ball must travel. I find that this system helps me with making these types of shots.
The first line I referred to, object ball's line to the pocket, is a line that I see in my peripheral vision only... meaning I never look directly at it while in my stance... before?, yes... but in my stance, no... and the latter line is the line that I am establishing from pointing my cue through the vertical centerline of the cue ball (assuming I want no english being applied on this shot) to the intersection point of the two lines on the face of the object ball.
Make sense?
Ocassionally... on long, straight-in shots, I'll aim from my cue tip going through the base point of the cue ball to the base point of the object ball. I then adjust the height of my cue tip to get the desired effect (draw/no float/follow) for the distance the cue ball must travel. I find that this system helps me with making these types of shots.